--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ...and I have never > > > > > > > been nominated for Usenet Kook of the Year. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > By Sherilyn, one of her more desperate moves. > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it that much. You only > > > > > got about 40 votes, mainly from your "fans" on > > > > > alt.meditation.transcendental and sci.skeptic. > > > > > > > > Um, I never worried about it at all. But > > > > apparently it was a big enough deal for you > > > > that you actually had to go count the votes. > > > > > > Nope. Someone on sci.skeptic kept track. They were > > > quite amused by you. > > > > > > I presume they were all "angry and usually dishonest > > > critics of TM," too? :-) > > > > In general, yeah. Non-angry and usually honest critics > > of anything don't indulge in ad hoc web-sites, ad hominem > > attacks, etc., on proponents of what they are critical of. > > You're trying to pull the same propaganda stunt > that Judy runs here. These people didn't come > down on Judy because she was a "TMer," ferchris- > sakes; they came down on her because she's JUDY. > > I followed sci.skeptic for a while. They did NOT > rag on TMers because they were TMers. They ragged > on abusive, arrogant posters because they were > abusive and arrogant. That's where Judy fit in. > > It's all about her personality, and how she > wields it. It wouldn't have mattered to those > people if she had been a member of a cargo cult > from the South Pacific; they'd still have found > her tactics repugnant. *That* is what you're > trying to obscure by claiming that they reacted > to her as they did because she was a "TMer." >
My recollection is that they ragged on her because she was arguing in a reasoned way, which challenged all sorts of things important to them, so they responded with the net- kook nomination.
